TEHRAN - Iranian officials said Wednesday that Tehran had received an official U.S. response to its latest proposal for ending the seven-month war, a diplomatic movement that keeps negotiations alive without showing that the two sides are close to an agreement.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi presented Washington's response to President Masoud Pezeshkian at a Cabinet meeting, government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani told Iran's state-run IRNA news agency. The government did not disclose the contents or say whether the response was an acceptance, rejection or counterproposal.

Pezeshkian said Iran would try to bring an agreement to fruition while defending what he called the rights of the Iranian people. He said any agreement should follow a win-win approach. His remarks were an expression of Iran's position, not confirmation that common terms had been reached.

The exchange followed Araghchi's trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Iranian officials held indirect contacts with U.S. officials and met Qatari and Pakistani mediators. Reuters reported, citing an official briefed on the talks, that Qatari mediators delivered U.S. feedback to Araghchi during a stop in Doha on Tuesday and that the order in which each side would act remained a central dispute.

Iran's plan proposed reopening the Strait of Hormuz within seven days if Washington lifted its blockade of Iranian ports, released frozen Iranian assets and waived sanctions on Iranian oil sales, among other conditions. President Donald Trump publicly rejected that offer last week, but he later said he expected negotiations to continue. Mediators kept carrying messages between the governments.

The Strait remains the most immediate economic issue. It is one of the world's most important energy routes, and months of conflict and threats to shipping have disrupted normal traffic. Restoring dependable passage would reduce risks for tankers, Gulf states and consumers far beyond the region.

Pressure continued alongside diplomacy. The U.S. Treasury announced sanctions Tuesday against 10 people and entities in Iran, Hong Kong and Pakistan that Washington accuses of supporting Iran's military supply chain. Iran's rial also fell to a record low of more than 2.5 million to the dollar, according to reporting from Tehran, deepening hardship for ordinary Iranians.

Trump said Wednesday that the conflict would end soon one way or another and threatened further military action if no deal emerged. That language underlined the danger of treating receipt of a diplomatic message as a breakthrough. The United States and Iran are still bargaining under the shadow of force.

A message is progress, but verification is the real test

Keeping a diplomatic channel open is better than allowing miscalculation to decide the next stage of the war. Qatar and Pakistan can move proposals between capitals that do not trust each other, giving both sides a way to test terms without first making a public concession. But secrecy also lets every government describe the process for its domestic audience while avoiding hard commitments.

Washington should negotiate from strength without confusing pressure with strategy. Sanctions, naval power and Iran's economic crisis give the United States leverage. The purpose of that leverage should be a durable outcome: safe passage through international waters, an enforceable end to attacks and credible limits on Iran's nuclear and military threats.

The Iranian regime has repeatedly used regional proxies, missiles and pressure on shipping to make other countries pay for disputes with Tehran. Any agreement that rewards coercion without removing the capacity to repeat it would purchase only a pause. Promises need timelines, monitoring and consequences for violations. A tanker route is not secure because officials announce that it is open; it is secure when ships can pass consistently without tolls, mines or threats.

At the same time, American policy should distinguish Iran's rulers from its people. Currency collapse, medicine shortages and higher food prices fall first on families with no control over the regime's decisions. Economic pressure can be necessary, but humanitarian channels should remain clear and measurable so Tehran cannot exploit civilian suffering as either a weapon or an excuse.

The nuclear issue cannot be deferred indefinitely. A short-term arrangement on Hormuz may be useful, but the United States and its democratic allies need verifiable restrictions, access for inspectors and a structure that does not depend on the goodwill of an opaque authoritarian system. Trust is not a substitute for inspection.

Iran's acknowledgment of a U.S. response means diplomacy has not collapsed. It does not mean peace is at hand. The darker reality is that both governments are testing whether the cost imposed on the other is high enough to force movement. A responsible American strategy must keep the door to a settlement open while refusing an agreement that merely resets the clock for the next crisis.